API V1 with database access

[openint-bot]

Important

Introduces API V1 with enhanced database access, including new routes, database initialization, role-based access control, and extensive testing.

• API Enhancements:
  • Introduced new API routes in app.ts using Elysia for /health, /v1/trpc, and /v1*.
  • Added connectionRouter, connectorConfigRouter, and eventRouter in trpc/routers for handling connections, configurations, and events.
• Database Integration:
  • Implemented initDbNeon, initDbPg, and initDbPGLite in db.neon.ts, db.pg.ts, and db.pglite.ts for database initialization.
  • Added dbFactory in db.ts to standardize database operations across different drivers.
  • Updated schema.ts to define database tables and policies.
• Testing and Utilities:
  • Added tests for database migrations and RLS policies in migration.spec.ts and neon.test.ts.
  • Created utility functions in test-utils.ts for database testing and migration generation.
  • Added escape-env.ts script to handle environment variable issues with Vercel.
• Security and Authorization:
  • Implemented role-based access control in rls.ts and schema.ts using PostgreSQL policies.
  • Enhanced JWT handling in context.ts and handlers.ts for secure API access.
• Miscellaneous:
  • Updated package.json dependencies for drizzle-orm and other packages.
  • Added applyLimitOffset utility in applyLimitOffset.ts for SQL query modifications.

^{This description was created by for 1318fa9. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
openint	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Mar 3, 2025 8:57pm

[recurseml]

😱 Found 5 issues. Time to roll up your sleeves! 😱

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 6a1974b in 3 minutes and 59 seconds

More details

• Looked at 2139 lines of code in 37 files
• Skipped 2 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 34 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/_base.ts:19

• Draft comment:
  This duplicates existing functionality. Please use protectedProcedure instead, which provides the same authentication plus additional features.

• function protectedProcedure (trpc.ts)

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  Without seeing the implementation of getProtectedContext, I cannot be certain that protectedProcedure provides the exact same functionality. The new code implements specific role-based checks that may be intentionally different from protectedProcedure. The PR author likely had a reason for creating these new, more specific procedures.
  I don't have full visibility into what protectedProcedure actually does. The new procedures might serve a different purpose with their specific role checks.
  Without seeing the full implementation of protectedProcedure, I cannot confidently say this is duplicate functionality. The new code appears to implement specific role-based authorization that may be intentionally different.
  Delete the comment as we don't have enough context to verify that protectedProcedure would provide equivalent functionality, and the new code implements specific role-based checks that may be intentionally different.

2. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/_base.ts:35

• Draft comment:
  This appears to duplicate existing adminProcedure. Consider using or extending the existing implementation if you need slightly different role restrictions.

• exported constant adminProcedure (trpc.ts)

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment identifies real duplication, but there may be intentional differences between the implementations. The packages seem to be separate (packages-v1 vs packages), suggesting they might need to be different. Without more context about why this new implementation exists in a v1 package, we can't be certain that reusing the existing implementation is correct.
  I might be overlooking the importance of maintaining separate implementations in different package versions. Also, the differences in implementation might be intentional design choices rather than oversight.
  While the duplication is real, the separate v1 package and implementation differences suggest this might be intentional rather than an oversight that needs fixing.
  Given the uncertainty about whether this duplication is intentional due to versioning, and following the principle of removing comments unless we're very confident, we should remove this comment.

3. packages-v1/api-v1/app.ts:21

• Draft comment:
  Consider using createNeonDatabase to measure neon latency instead of createDatabase, unless intentionally identical.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The variable names suggest an intention to measure two different types of database connections (postgresJs vs neon), but the code uses identical function calls. However, without seeing the definition of createNeonDatabase or knowing if it exists, I can't be certain the suggestion is valid. The comment is speculative without more context.
  I might be missing important context about createNeonDatabase from other files. The identical measurements might be intentional for comparison purposes.
  Even if createNeonDatabase exists elsewhere, we should follow the rule of not making speculative comments or assuming intent without strong evidence in the current file.
  Delete the comment as it requires additional context to validate and could be speculative. The identical measurements might be intentional.

4. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/connection.ts:20

• Draft comment:
  ctx.viewer.orgId is used without explicit guarantee; ensure the viewer object always contains orgId, especially since contextFromRequest sets role to 'system'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The use of the non-null assertion (!) is a potential red flag. However, without seeing the type definitions for ctx.viewer or understanding the authentication setup, we can't be certain this is actually an issue. The comment is speculative without showing concrete evidence of the problem. The mention of 'contextFromRequest' isn't visible in the provided code.
  We don't have access to the type definitions or authentication setup - the issue could be already handled elsewhere. The TODO comment suggests this code might be placeholder anyway.
  While type safety is important, without seeing the full context of how ctx.viewer is guaranteed, this comment is too speculative and asks for verification rather than pointing out a concrete issue.
  Delete the comment as it violates the rules by being speculative and asking for verification without strong evidence of an actual issue.

5. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/connectorConfig.ts:19

• Draft comment:
  Similar to connection router, ensure that ctx.viewer.orgId is defined when querying connector_config.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

6. apps/web/app/api/trpc/[...trpc]/route.ts:3

• Draft comment:
  Using the 'edge' runtime is intentional; verify that its streaming behavior suits all TRPC responses.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify the behavior of the 'edge' runtime, which is against the rules. It does not provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code. Therefore, it should be removed.

7. bin/tp.ts:87

• Draft comment:
  Good addition to check for 'localtest.me' in the hostname; confirm that this covers all local testing scenarios.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to confirm their intention regarding the use of 'localtest.me' in the hostname. This violates the rule against asking the PR author to confirm their intention or to ensure the behavior is intended. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

8. docker-compose.yml:40

• Draft comment:
  The neon-proxy service is added with proper dependency on postgres health; double‐check that the PG_CONNECTION_STRING format is correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment asks the PR author to double-check the PG_CONNECTION_STRING format, which violates the rule against asking the author to double-check things. It does not provide a specific suggestion or ask for a specific test to be written.

9. docker/neon-proxy/Caddyfile:1

• Draft comment:
  Caddyfile setup for reverse proxy with TLS settings looks correct; ensure the trusted CA (server.pem) is up‐to‐date when regenerated.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that a specific file is up-to-date when certain settings are regenerated. This falls under the category of asking the author to ensure something is done, which is against the rules.

10. docker/neon-proxy/Dockerfile:56

• Draft comment:
  Self-signed certificate generation and copying of start.sh look solid; add a comment if troubleshooting cert issues is needed in the future.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative and does not provide a specific code suggestion or request for clarification. It suggests adding a comment for future troubleshooting, which is not actionable for the current PR.

11. docker/postgres/Dockerfile:2

• Draft comment:
  This Dockerfile for pg_session_jwt extension isn’t fully functional yet; ensure the version updates and build instructions are revisited.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the author to ensure that the Dockerfile is fully functional and to revisit version updates and build instructions. This is a request for confirmation and testing, which violates the rules.

12. package.json:27

• Draft comment:
  The environment pull scripts now use separate commands with a transformation pipeline. Confirm that the bun-based escape script reliably handles all edge cases.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment asks the PR author to confirm that a specific script handles all edge cases, which is a form of asking for confirmation or verification. This violates the rule against asking the PR author to confirm their intention or ensure behavior. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

13. packages-v1/api-v1/app.ts:18

• Draft comment:
  Both Postgres and Neon latency checks use createDatabase with the same URL; consider using createNeonDatabase for the Neon check if distinct behavior is expected.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The code does look strange - why have two identical latency checks? However, I don't see any evidence of a createNeonDatabase function in the imports. The comment is speculative - "if distinct behavior is expected". We don't know the author's intention, and there could be valid reasons for checking the same connection twice.
  I might be missing context about whether createNeonDatabase exists elsewhere in the codebase. The duplicate checks might be intentional for measuring variance.
  Without clear evidence that createNeonDatabase exists or that using identical checks is wrong, this comment is too speculative.
  The comment makes assumptions about intended behavior and suggests using a function we can't verify exists. It's too speculative to be actionable.

14. packages-v1/api-v1/scripts/generateAndExportKeys.ts:13

• Draft comment:
  Key generation script for RSA keys using jose is well implemented; ensure the generated metadata (kid, use, alg) aligns with downstream verification requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that the generated metadata aligns with downstream verification requirements. This falls under the category of asking the author to ensure something is tested or verified, which violates the rules.

15. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/connection.ts:20

• Draft comment:
  Query uses ctx.viewer.orgId, yet the default context (e.g. in contextFromRequest) only sets role: 'system'. Ensure that orgId is populated when needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment raises a potentially valid concern about accessing orgId that might be undefined. However, we can't verify the claim about default context without seeing the context definition files. The TODO comment suggests this code isn't finished anyway. The comment is asking for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue.
  I might be too quick to dismiss this - using undefined values could cause runtime errors. Also, the reviewer seems to have specific knowledge about the default context.
  While the concern might be valid, the comment violates our rules by asking for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue. Additionally, the TODO suggests this code is incomplete anyway.
  Delete the comment because it asks for verification ("Ensure that...") rather than pointing out a clear issue, and we can't verify the claim about default context without more files.

16. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/index.ts:18

• Draft comment:
  Minor formatting: trailing comma in mergeRouters is harmless but review for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 30% <= threshold 50%
  None

17. packages-v1/db-v1/neon.test.ts:14

• Draft comment:
  Neon Pool test is currently skipped; consider enabling once the neon proxy setup is stable to validate WS connections.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This appears to be more of an informational comment suggesting to enable tests later. It's not pointing out a clear issue that needs to be fixed now. The .skip appears intentional based on the eslint-disable comment at the top and other skipped tests in the file. The comment is making assumptions about when tests should be enabled.
  The test might be skipped for a good reason that I don't fully understand. There could be infrastructure dependencies that need to be set up first.
  The comment is making assumptions about test infrastructure and timing without clear evidence that enabling the test now would be correct or useful.
  This comment should be deleted as it's not pointing out a clear issue that needs fixing, but rather making suggestions about future test enabling that may depend on external factors.

18. packages-v1/db-v1/scripts/decode-jwt.sql:315

• Draft comment:
  Double-check the RSA decryption logic (e.g. modular exponentiation and conversion) to ensure compatibility with all JWTs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to double-check the RSA decryption logic for compatibility, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm or ensure behavior. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a clear issue.

19. packages/env/env.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Importing z from '@opensdks/util-zod' – confirm that this is intentional and consistent with your use of zod elsewhere.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

20. packages/env/env.ts:117

• Draft comment:
  Overriding NEXT_PUBLIC env values from localStorage is useful for debugging, but ensure this mechanism is disabled or secure in production environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

21. scripts/escape-env.ts:11

• Draft comment:
  The escape script for Vercel env values addresses issue #11258; verify that the regex replacement works for all edge cases with embedded spaces or quotes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to verify the regex replacement for edge cases, which falls under asking the author to double-check things. This violates the rules.

22. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:120

• Draft comment:
  Typo in comment: 'To test this with a locally install postgres, run' should be 'To test this with a locally installed postgres, run'. Please correct the wording for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

23. bin/tp.ts:19

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: In the USAGE string definition at line 19, 'iun hex codes' should be corrected to 'in hex codes'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

24. docker-compose.yml:25

• Draft comment:
  Typo found: 'lastest tag' should be corrected to 'latest tag' to avoid confusion.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

25. docker/neon-proxy/Caddyfile:1

• Draft comment:
  Typographical error: The listen directive on line 1 incorrectly uses two colons ('::4444 {') instead of one. Please update it to ':4444 {'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

26. packages-v1/api-v1/app.ts:28

• Draft comment:
  Typo in comment: 'so we are forced tos specify url instead' should be corrected to 'so we are forced to specify url instead'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

27. packages-v1/db-v1/db.test.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Typo in the file comment: Line 1 still indicates 'test/index.test.ts' while the file is actually 'db.test.ts'. Consider updating the comment to match the new file name.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While technically correct, this is an extremely minor issue. The file header comment doesn't affect functionality, testing, or code quality. It's purely cosmetic and doesn't require any meaningful code changes. According to the rules, we should not make comments that are obvious or unimportant.
  The comment is technically accurate and suggests a concrete fix. Incorrect documentation could potentially confuse future developers.
  While accurate, this is too minor to warrant a PR comment. File header comments are often outdated and developers generally rely on actual file paths rather than header comments.
  This comment should be deleted as it points out an unimportant cosmetic issue that doesn't meaningfully impact the code.

28. packages-v1/db-v1/migration.ts:17

• Draft comment:
  The comment on line 17 says 'No need no more', which is a bit awkward. Consider rephrasing it to something like 'No longer needed' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the suggested wording is technically better English, commenting on comment wording is extremely low value. The comment itself is likely temporary and will be removed along with the commented code in a future cleanup. The actual code changes (new migration system) are what matter here.
  Perhaps poor comment wording could confuse future developers? Maybe maintaining high quality even in comments is important for code readability?
  The comment is clearly temporary documentation of removed code. Its exact wording has minimal impact on code quality or maintainability.
  Delete this PR comment. Nitpicking temporary comment wording provides no real value and distracts from reviewing the actual code changes.

29. packages-v1/db-v1/neon.test.ts:14

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the commented-out code on line 14, the import statement is missing a closing quote. It should be import('ws') instead of import('ws).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The code is commented out and appears to be example/reference code. The typo is minor and in non-functional code. Since the code isn't actually being used and is just a comment, fixing this typo won't impact functionality. The rules state we should only comment if there's clearly a code change required.
  The typo could confuse future developers who try to uncomment and use this code. It's technically a valid issue.
  While technically correct, commenting on typos in commented-out code is too minor and doesn't meet the bar of "clearly a code change required." Developers would quickly spot and fix this if they ever uncomment the code.
  Delete the comment as it addresses a minor typo in commented-out code, which doesn't meet the threshold for requiring a PR comment.

30. packages-v1/db-v1/schema.ts:6

• Draft comment:
  There is a typographical error in the comment on line 6. The phrase 'Needs to be create a new timestamp each time' should be corrected, e.g., to 'Needs to create a new timestamp each time to avoid implicit drizzle caching issues.'
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the grammatical error exists, fixing comment grammar is very low value. The meaning is still clear. The rules state to only keep comments that require clear code changes, and to avoid obvious or unimportant changes. This is purely cosmetic and doesn't affect functionality.
  The comment does identify a real grammatical error, and clear documentation is important for maintainability.
  However, the bar for PR comments should be higher - we should focus on substantive issues that affect code quality or functionality, not minor typos in comments.
  This comment should be deleted as it addresses a trivial grammatical issue that doesn't impact code functionality or understanding.

31. packages-v1/db-v1/scripts/decode-jwt-no-verify.sql:2

• Draft comment:
  On line 2, consider revising the comment for clarity. 'authorize issues on local for now...' could be rephrased to 'authorization issues on local environments for now...' to better convey the intended meaning.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The suggested change is extremely minor - changing "authorize" to "authorization" and adding "environments". While technically more correct English, this kind of nitpicking on comments doesn't improve code quality or functionality. Comments are meant to convey meaning, and the current wording, while slightly informal, is perfectly understandable.
  The suggested wording is technically more correct English and could make the comment slightly clearer for non-native English speakers.
  The benefit is too minor to justify a review comment. We should focus on substantive issues rather than minor wording tweaks in comments.
  Delete this comment as it suggests an extremely minor wording change that doesn't meaningfully improve code quality or clarity.

32. packages/env/env.ts:39

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Consider changing 'tho' to 'though' for clarity in the comment on the DEBUG variable (Line 39).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

33. packages/env/env.ts:116

• Draft comment:
  Typo: Correct 'overwriten' to 'overwritten' in the comment on Line 116.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

34. scripts/escape-env.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  On line 1, the comment "// Workaround for vercel env pull cannot properly handle value that contains " #11258" might be confusing due to the unescaped double quote. Consider rephrasing it (e.g., "// Workaround for Vercel env pull which cannot properly handle values containing double quotes; see #11258") for clearer communication.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the suggested rewording might be marginally clearer, the original comment is still understandable and serves its purpose. The presence of the issue number (#11258) makes the context clear regardless. This seems like a purely stylistic suggestion that doesn't materially improve code quality or fix any actual issues.
  The unescaped quote could potentially cause confusion for some readers. The suggested rewording is objectively clearer.
  The marginal clarity improvement doesn't meet the threshold of "clearly a code change required" - the original comment is functional and includes the crucial issue reference.
  Delete this comment as it suggests a purely stylistic change to documentation that doesn't materially improve code quality or fix any actual issues.

Workflow ID: wflow_05rJn5QGARheOW7G

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 14f5cd2 in 1 minute and 37 seconds

More details

• Looked at 16 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. apps/web/app/api/trpc/[...trpc]/route.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Removal of 'runtime' export: confirm that the edge environment configuration is no longer needed. This change may affect deployment if running on edge was intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment asks for confirmation and verification, which violates our rules. It's asking the author to "confirm" something, which is explicitly forbidden. The comment is speculative about potential deployment issues. We don't have strong evidence that removing edge runtime is actually problematic.
  Maybe the edge runtime is actually critical for this API endpoint and removing it could cause production issues?
  Without clear evidence that edge runtime is required, we must assume the author knows what they're doing. The comment is asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue.
  Delete this comment as it violates our rules by asking for confirmation and making speculative statements about potential issues without strong evidence.

2. apps/web/app/api/trpc/[...trpc]/route.ts:2

• Draft comment:
  Removed 'export const runtime = "edge"'. Ensure this change is intentional as it affects the runtime environment.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment violates our rules by asking to "ensure" something is intentional. It's asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue. The PR author likely deliberately made this change, and if it causes issues, it would be caught in testing/deployment.
  The runtime environment could be critical for functionality, and removing edge runtime might have significant performance implications.
  While runtime changes are important, asking for confirmation isn't actionable. If there were specific issues with removing edge runtime, those should be pointed out directly.
  Delete this comment as it merely asks for confirmation without providing actionable feedback or identifying a specific issue.

3. apps/web/app/api/trpc/[...trpc]/route.ts:4

• Draft comment:
  Uncommented 'maxDuration'. Verify that 300 seconds is suitable for the current runtime configuration.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_Y5RHk9nEW265w0nH

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 759a916 in 1 minute and 21 seconds

More details

• Looked at 24 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages-v1/api-v1/app.ts:22

• Draft comment:
  Avoid forcing a cast with 'as unknown as Database'. Ensure createNeonDatabase returns an object matching the Database interface instead of bypassing type safety.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. packages-v1/api-v1/app.ts:30

• Draft comment:
  Typo: In the comment on line 30, 'forced tos specify url' should be corrected to 'forced to specify url'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_y04CFBbM1MuiKV4W

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on eaec1db in 46 seconds

More details

• Looked at 66 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 2 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages-v1/util-v1/id.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  File removal: Confirm that deleting branding and id utilities is intended and that no dependent code is left broken.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. packages-v1/util-v1/index.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  File removal: Verify the removal of index re-export aligns with the new project structure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. packages-v1/util-v1/package.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Package file deletion: Ensure removal of package.json is part of a planned deprecation or consolidation strategy.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. packages-v1/util-v1/id.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Removed file id.ts that contained branded ULID helpers. Ensure this removal is intentional and that none of its functions (makeUlid, makeId) are needed elsewhere.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. packages-v1/util-v1/index.ts:1

• Draft comment:
  Removed index.ts which re-exported the contents of id.ts. Confirm that no modules depend on this re-export.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. packages-v1/util-v1/package.json:1

• Draft comment:
  Deleted package.json for util-v1. Verify that this package and its dependencies (ulid, typebox, zod) are no longer required or have been relocated.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_N8PcZkEOExYH9YN1

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 87f41e9 in 2 minutes and 14 seconds

More details

• Looked at 102 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages-v1/api-v1/models.ts:10

• Draft comment:
  Ensure event schemas are aligned with DB returns; verify that drizzle-zod schema wrappers meet runtime validation expectations.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. packages-v1/api-v1/models.ts:10

• Draft comment:
  Rename 'event' & 'event_insert' for clarity (e.g., eventSchema, eventInsertSchema).
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. packages-v1/api-v1/models.ts:17

• Draft comment:
  Improve error message or use a custom error type in parseNonEmpty.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/event.ts:7

• Draft comment:
  createEvent performs a DB insert and should be a mutation, not a query.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

5. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/event.ts:11

• Draft comment:
  There is a slight grammatical issue in the comment on line 11. The sentence "Ref does not work for input params for now in zod-openapi. So will be inlined in the spec unfortunately" is a bit unclear. Consider rephrasing it to something like "Reference doesn't work for input parameters in zod-openapi currently, so they will be inlined in the spec." This would improve clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment is suggesting a minor grammatical improvement to an inline comment. While technically about a changed line since this is a new file, it's not pointing out any actual code issues. The original comment is already clear enough to understand the technical limitation it's describing. This feels like unnecessary nitpicking that doesn't improve code quality.
  The improved wording is arguably clearer and more professional. Documentation quality does matter for maintainability.
  While better documentation is good, this change is too minor to justify a PR comment. The existing comment effectively communicates the technical limitation.
  Delete the comment as it suggests only a trivial rewording of documentation without improving code quality or fixing any real issues.

Workflow ID: wflow_7s1dLrgne7JLclmg

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 5c9972e in 3 minutes and 27 seconds

More details

• Looked at 172 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 8 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/connection.ts:22

• Draft comment:
  Removed org filtering from listConnections. Confirm if this change is intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 0% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a security-related change that removes access control filtering. However, the comment just asks for confirmation rather than stating it's definitely an issue. Per our rules, we should not ask authors to confirm their intentions. If removing org filtering is definitely wrong, we should say so directly.
  Maybe there's another layer of access control we don't know about? Without seeing the full codebase context around auth, we can't be 100% sure this is a security issue.
  While there could be other auth layers, removing org-level filtering from a public procedure is concerning enough that it warrants raising as a potential security issue more directly.
  Delete this comment, but it should be replaced with a more direct comment about the security implications of removing org filtering from a public endpoint.

2. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/event.ts:14

• Draft comment:
  Using non-null assertion (event!) on insert result can mask errors; consider handling empty returns.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  In SQL, an INSERT with RETURNING will always return at least one row unless it fails with an error. Drizzle maintains this behavior. The destructuring with [event] is actually safer than the original code. The ! is technically redundant but not harmful since event cannot be undefined here. This seems more like a stylistic concern than a real error risk.
  I could be wrong about Drizzle's guarantees. There might be edge cases where an INSERT succeeds but returns no rows.
  Even if there were edge cases, the destructuring pattern would catch them by making event undefined, so the ! actually isn't masking any errors that weren't already possible in the original code.
  The comment should be removed. The non-null assertion isn't introducing new error risks and the code is actually safer than before due to the destructuring.

3. packages/db/schema/schema.ts:36

• Draft comment:
  Using $type() for jsonb 'settings' reduces type safety; consider a more specific type if possible.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment makes a valid point about type safety, several things make me lean towards removing it: 1) This appears to be an intentional pattern being applied across many fields 2) The comment doesn't provide specific guidance on what type to use 3) Without more context about how these fields are used, we can't know if more specific types are actually possible 4) The change seems deliberate rather than accidental.
  I could be wrong about this being an intentional pattern - maybe it's actually a mistake that needs to be fixed. The type safety concern is valid.
  The systematic nature of the changes across many fields strongly suggests this is intentional rather than a mistake. If type safety was a priority, the PR author would likely have added specific types rather than any.
  The comment should be removed. While it raises a valid concern, the systematic nature of the changes suggests this is an intentional choice, and the comment doesn't provide actionable specifics about what types to use instead.

4. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/connection.ts:12

• Draft comment:
  Output schema only extracts 'id' and 'connector_config_id'; ensure returned connection objects are mapped to match this schema.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment looked like it was already resolved.

5. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/event.ts:7

• Draft comment:
  createEvent performs a DB insertion; use a mutation instead of a query to follow TRPC best practices.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. packages-v1/api-v1/trpc/routers/event.ts:14

• Draft comment:
  Non-null assertion on the inserted event may be unsafe; consider handling the case where no event is returned.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a database insert operation that returns the inserted row(s). Since this is an insert, not a select/update, it will always either succeed with one row or throw an error - there's no case where it would return an empty array. The non-null assertion is actually safe here because the type system just doesn't know that insert().returning() always returns at least one row on success.
  What if there are database constraints or triggers that could prevent the insert? What if the database is unreachable?
  Those cases would throw errors before reaching the non-null assertion - the database driver would throw on connection issues, and constraint violations would throw during insert. The code would never get to the point of having an empty array.
  The comment should be deleted because the non-null assertion is actually safe in this context - an insert operation cannot succeed without returning the inserted row.

7. packages/db/drizzle.config.ts:8

• Draft comment:
  Verify that the updated schema path ('./schema/schema.ts') aligns with your project structure.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

8. packages/db/schema/schema.ts:247

• Draft comment:
  Typographical note: The comment on line 247 uses 'FiXME' which is uncommon. Typically, 'FIXME' (all uppercase) is used. Consider standardizing the comment to 'FIXME' for consistency.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_LE9LXqupb1qmpQ63

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 1490ad2 in 2 minutes and 34 seconds

More details

• Looked at 14796 lines of code in 236 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. README.md:51

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'Vercle' should be corrected to 'Vercel' to accurately reflect the deployment service's name.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

2. README.md:66

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'Provission certificate' should be corrected to 'Provision certificate' for clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

3. README.md:71

• Draft comment:
  Typo: 'terminiation' should be corrected to 'termination' in the comment describing local SSL termination.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. apps/app-config/package.json:28

• Draft comment:
  There appears to be a potential typo in the dependency '@openint/connector-foreceipt' (line 28). Please check if this should be '@openint/connector-receipt' or the intended naming is correct.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_hLHgUg49PGmf6pBI

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on b311181 in 6 minutes and 52 seconds

More details

• Looked at 33 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. packages/db/__tests__/test-utils.ts:18

• Draft comment:
  Ensure that tests are run in an environment where the uuid_ossp extension is available when enableExtensions is true. This could lead to unexpected failures if missing.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. packages/db/db.pglite.ts:13

• Draft comment:
  Document the new enableExtensions parameter in initDbPGLite for clarity on its purpose and usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

3. packages/db/__tests__/test-utils.ts:18

• Draft comment:
  Clarify in a comment why enableExtensions is always set to true for pglite tests, ensuring that dependent behaviors (like uuid_ossp usage) are intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. packages/db/db.pglite.ts:14

• Draft comment:
  Consider setting a default value (e.g. false) for enableExtensions to enhance clarity and avoid unintended behavior when the flag isn’t specified.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. packages/db/__tests__/test-utils.ts:10

• Draft comment:
  There's a minor redundancy in the comment on lines 10-11. Consider removing one of the 'and' so it reads more clearly (e.g., 'neon driver does not work well for migrations at the moment and should therefore not be used for running migrations').
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_QRW5ruEqZEnjBXYY

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 82995a2 in 2 minutes and 9 seconds

More details

• Looked at 33 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:49

• Draft comment:
  Increased NODE_OPTIONS from 4096 to 8192. Verify the CI container has enough memory to accommodate this change.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to verify the CI container's memory, which is against the rules as it asks for confirmation or verification. It doesn't provide a specific code suggestion or point out a specific issue with the code itself.

2. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:139

• Draft comment:
  Lint step moved after tests. Consider running lint earlier to catch issues before tests begin.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment is technically correct that linting could catch issues before tests, several factors make this less important: 1) Type checks already run early which catch many issues 2) Linting and tests are independent - failing tests won't be fixed by linting 3) The order may be intentional to parallelize or optimize CI time 4) This is a minor workflow optimization at best.
  The comment points out a real workflow optimization opportunity. Moving lint earlier could save developer time by failing fast on style issues.
  While technically valid, this is more of a minor preference than a clear issue requiring change. The current order still works fine and may have been chosen deliberately.
  This comment should be removed as it suggests a minor workflow optimization without strong evidence that the current order is problematic.

3. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:49

• Draft comment:
  Increasing NODE_OPTIONS to 8192MB may impact CI resource usage. Confirm the runner can handle this memory allocation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that the CI runner can handle the increased memory allocation. This falls under asking the author to confirm or ensure something, which is against the rules. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

4. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:139

• Draft comment:
  Lint step was moved after tests. Consider running lint earlier to catch style issues sooner if that was intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was on unchanged code.

Workflow ID: wflow_cJMjiQOh7tLz6bTI

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 77c273f in 1 minute and 34 seconds

More details

• Looked at 14 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:136

• Draft comment:
  Uncommenting the upterm session step. Ensure this isn’t unintentionally exposing an interactive session in CI. Consider gating it behind a debug flag if not needed for automated runs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

2. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:137

• Draft comment:
  Pin the action version for reproducibility.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative and does not provide a specific suggestion or highlight a potential issue with the code. It does not align with the rules for acceptable comments.

3. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:136

• Draft comment:
  Ensure this debug session step doesn’t block subsequent tests.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to ensure that a debug session step doesn't block subsequent tests. This falls under the category of asking the author to ensure something is tested or behaves as intended, which is against the rules.

Workflow ID: wflow_01fy824wbJ1gxpi6

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on e6c25be in 2 minutes and 59 seconds

More details

• Looked at 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:44

• Draft comment:
  Ensure 'localtest.me' is intentional: verify DNS resolution in this CI context and that it aligns with production settings.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a CI workflow file, and localtest.me is a well-known DNS service that always resolves to 127.0.0.1. It's commonly used in development and testing. The comment is asking for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue. The change seems intentional as it's used consistently in the file. This looks like a deliberate configuration for the test environment.
  I might be missing security implications of using localtest.me in CI. There could be edge cases where DNS resolution fails.
  The use of localtest.me is a standard practice for local development and testing. Any DNS issues would be caught immediately by the CI pipeline itself failing.
  Delete the comment. It's asking for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue, and the use of localtest.me appears intentional and consistent throughout the file.

2. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:44

• Draft comment:
  Using 'localtest.me' in PG_CONNECTION_STRING may break the container network. In GitHub Actions, services are typically accessed via their service name (e.g. 'postgres') or a proper host alias. Confirm the intended DNS resolution.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a GitHub Actions workflow where services are defined and the postgres service is named 'postgres'. While typically services are accessed via service names in GitHub Actions, the fact that localtest.me is used consistently in both DATABASE_URL and PG_CONNECTION_STRING suggests this is intentional. The workflow appears to be working since it's being used in production.
  I might be missing some context about why localtest.me is being used instead of the service name. There could be a specific reason for this change that isn't apparent.
  Even if there's a reason I don't understand, the comment is speculative ("may break") and asks for confirmation ("Confirm the intended DNS resolution"), which violates our rules.
  The comment should be deleted as it's speculative and asks for confirmation, both of which violate our rules. If this were actually breaking something, it would be evident in the workflow runs.

Workflow ID: wflow_MIhcyvVXus87bOoI

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 9c0efbf in 2 minutes and 34 seconds

More details

• Looked at 32 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:44

• Draft comment:
  Changed PG_CONNECTION_STRING host; ensure this DNS entry is resolvable in your network.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that a DNS entry is resolvable, which falls under the category of asking them to double-check or ensure something. This violates the rule against asking the author to ensure behavior is intended or tested.

2. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:51

• Draft comment:
  DATABASE_URL updated to use 'db.localtest.me'; confirm this matches your container setup.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that the change matches their container setup. This falls under the rule of not asking the author to confirm their intention or to ensure the behavior is intended. Therefore, this comment should be removed.

3. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:137

• Draft comment:
  Commented out upterm session. If not needed, consider removing to clean up the workflow.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  Commented out code is generally considered bad practice and should be removed if it's no longer needed. However, in CI workflows, it's common to keep debugging tools commented out for future troubleshooting. The presence of two similar commented sections suggests this might be intentional for debugging purposes. The comment isn't pointing out a bug or serious issue.
  The comment might be valid from a code cleanliness perspective, but it's more of a minor suggestion than a required change. Also, the debugging tools might be intentionally kept for future use.
  While clean code is important, this comment doesn't highlight a significant issue that needs immediate attention. The commented code might serve a purpose for debugging.
  The comment should be removed as it's not highlighting a critical issue that requires immediate action, and the commented code might be intentionally kept for debugging purposes.

4. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:44

• Draft comment:
  Ensure 'db.localtest.me' in PG_CONNECTION_STRING resolves correctly in the CI environment.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to ensure that a specific configuration resolves correctly in the CI environment. This falls under the category of asking the author to double-check or ensure something, which is against the rules.

5. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:50

• Draft comment:
  Confirm DATABASE_URL using 'db.localtest.me' is correct for accessing your test database.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to confirm their intention regarding the use of DATABASE_URL with db.localtest.me. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a potential issue directly. It seems to be asking for confirmation, which violates the rules.

6. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:133

• Draft comment:
  If the upterm session step is no longer needed, consider removing the commented lines.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 33% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_zvdGAKldnXcbNDCA

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 1318fa9 in 2 minutes and 28 seconds

More details

• Looked at 15 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/validate-workflow.yml:136

• Draft comment:
  Uncommented the upterm session step. Ensure that initiating an upterm session in this CI workflow is intentional, as it may expose debugging interfaces in non-development environments.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a security-related concern about exposing debugging interfaces. However, this appears to be a validation workflow that runs tests, and having debugging capabilities during test runs can be intentional and useful. The comment is speculative ("may expose") and asks for confirmation of intention, which violates our rules.
  The security concern about exposing debugging interfaces could be valid. Perhaps there's a real security risk here that should be addressed.
  While security is important, this is a validation workflow, and debugging tools are often intentionally enabled for test environments. The comment is asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a definite issue.
  Delete the comment as it violates our rules by asking for confirmation of intention and making speculative statements rather than pointing out definite issues.

Workflow ID: wflow_qTWGjdIXyGlGU2O5

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Activating the upterm session may block the CI run or expose an interactive shell. Consider gating this step (e.g., via an 'if' condition) for debugging only, and pin the action to a specific version for stability and security.